March 14, 2012

Senior Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod has canceled an appearance on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher that was originally scheduled for later this month....

After the fallout from Rush Limbaugh’s crass insults of Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, conservatives began arguing that there was a double standard, with Democrats (and the media) far more tolerant when liberal media figures use crass words to describe Republican women, Maher being Exhibit A in their case....

[And] the comedian Louis CK recently pulled out as entertainer at the Radio-TV Correspondents Dinner. This followed criticisms... over the comedian’s past use of offensive language about former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

And Maher gave $1 million to the pro-Obama Super-PAC.

Rush Limbaugh is a media genius, but I don't think he's enough of a genius to have laid this trap. It has worked as a trap. By going too far, on one well-chosen occasion — picking on a young woman about sex — he got an immense reaction from Rush haters, who smelled blood and imagined that they could use this incident to drive Rush off the air. In making their strong argument, Rush's opponents articulated a rule demonizing those who use offensive language to describe a woman.

Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

In this Fluke incident, many left-liberals have committed to a rule that can now be used to take out some of their most valuable speakers and media outlets.

Let's keep reading Alinsky:

The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

We'll find out who the real masters of ridicule are. Rush has his material, and he's going to use it. Look for Maher to attempt counterattacks with witticisms like "fat fuck." (Which I would think violates a left-wing rule that lefties should be compelled to live up to. I mean, do they accept mocking a person for being overweight like that?)

More Alinsky:

The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.* If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.

The asterisk points to a footnote that quotes — of all people — William F. Buckley, Jr.: "Alinsky takes the iconoclast’s pleasure in kicking the biggest behinds in town and the sport is not untempting …"

"Biggest behinds"... mocking the fat... hmmm... it is a tempting sport! Who will win?

"Here's Rule 4 (pp. 128-129):Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

Ahh, but Christians have it easier. They admit they can't live up to their ideals. That's why they also have that "cast the first stone" rule; which liberals could never live up to. What's the fun of being a liberal if you can't ridicule the rubes?

"Rush Limbaugh is a media genius, but I don't think he's enough of a genius to have laid this trap. It has worked as a trap. By going too far, on one well-chosen occasion — picking on a young woman about sex — he got an immense reaction from Rush haters, who smelled blood and imagined that they could use this incident to drive Rush off the air. In making their strong argument, Rush's opponents articulated a rule demonizing those who use offensive language to describe a woman."

Undoubtedly true. Limbaugh (no anyone, for that matter) isn't smart enough to have thoroughly gamed out this scenario. He undoubtedly underestimated the reaction to his name-calling, if only because his ever-aggressive stance toward almost everything desensitizes him toward his own act; in turn, the Left undoubtedly underestimated their own vulnerability to the same charges they leveled against Limbaugh, if only because the double-standard favoring the Left has conditioned them to be unleashed dogs.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but my guess is, nothing will change. Limbaugh will still be on the air, antagonizing Liberals, and Liberals like Bill Maher will still call women like Sarah Palin cunts.

Alynsky's rules show his complete lack of understanding of how a true Christian comports him or her self.

1. True followers of Christ (the people I consider to be, anyway) don't get flustered that they can't live up to the rules because they know that the rules are an aspiration not an imperative, as Original Mike has said.

2. True followers of Christ don't get infuriated no matter what you say to them.

Well after the mysoginy displayed toward Palin and other conservative woman, the faux outrage displayed over some crass words to describe a 30 year old law student who can't afford her own birth control was a bit rich.

Perhaps liberals are finding it tough to live up to the standards they set for everyone else.

Crass language has it's place and that place isn't in public discourse on the airwaves. The whole point of using it is the thrill of breaking a taboo. If you use it in public you do neither public nor private dialogue any favors. I don't want to hear it in public anymore than I want to hear baby talk between adults.

Maybe it's just me, but I always regret using crass language. In hindsight, I never feel proud of that choice. It's like drinking too much, it only feels good at the time. Later it's always: "What was I thinking" and feeling that I don't want to be that guy?

I think Rush feels that way, and I don't think Maher does, which means I have more respect for Rush.

Crass language has it's place and that place isn't in public discourse on the airwaves. The whole point of using it is the thrill of breaking a taboo.

It seems to me cunt has a very specific performance. It would fall within its range to say that women who object to being called cunts are acting as cunts.

I'd suppose that means that you (men) are attracted to them but as a price have to put up with whatever their problem is at the moment.

That performance of cunt falls within public discourse. It's guy bonding precisely because it's public.

Women can watch and, who knows, learn about the effect of public nagging.

As to crass langauge, it's not a taboo so much as language that requires a relationship that grants permission. When it's used in public, it's offensive not in being offensive by reference but in being offered without permission.

Words are invented precisely to require that permission, so as to be able to violate that permission when you want to offend somebody.

However, trading on that for yet another feminist public is beyond the pale. Let cunt fly, it won't work, ladies.

The game is still predicated on political correctness, so there can be no winners, except in the short term. Once the opposition is neutralized, then it turns on whoever wields it. My take stays the same:

phx, I don't think too many people were defending it. Pointing out that lefties have said the same or worse isn't so much defending as pointing out that the Left was trying to use this for political gain, while blithely ignoring what they have been doing for years.

Phx. If the Dems go first then I agree. Otherwise no. Conservatives have historically adopted that grown up tactic only to find that they have been tattooed with negative stereotypes that will be more difficult to undo than to receive. So, we take our president's excellent advice and punch back twice as hard. Very effective, particularly when you have the facts on your side, the internet as your ally and a growing willingness to call bullshit on bullshit.

I don't know who will win but do know who will lose. Us. We're faced with 10s of trillions of dollars in unfunded mandates and we spend our time talking about contraception and social issues because it's more soothing than facing our own impending implosion.

Michael: It's not Dems go first for doing the right thing or I won't! Or Rethugs go first or I'm out!Utter bullshit. You are responsible for yourself as an INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING - if you don't want that responsibility, well join the millions on all sides. That's the only way it can work. If we accept responsibility for our own behaviors ALL THE FREAKING TIME. You can't bug out because it gives someone else "an advantage".

I'm pretty sure Rush deliberately stirred this up [after all, he repeated and elaborated on his incendiary comments for three days, just to make sure people noticed them]. To what extent he anticipated further developments I'm not sure.

Certainly he would have noticed the administration's efforts to force "women's issues" to the forefront and may well have tried to disrupt their schedule. He would also have anticipated the swell of uncontrollable outrage from feminist sources and figured that Obama might be embarrassed by some of its loonier manifestations. He may even have foreseen the wave of pro-Hillary, anti-Obama sentiment that is beginning to emerge on the left. To that extent his comments can be seen simply an extension of "operation chaos" -- using feminist as tools to create difficulties for Obama.

"... Shouldn't it be that people who know better ought to say simply "Yeah, that's not appropriate" and then we move on to discuss issues?.."

I think most people including conservatives believed Rush's comments were over the top. The pushback came over the faux outrage from the same people who shrugged when Palin was called a cunt, or Inghran a slur or Malkin, oh hell pick an epithet.

The asterisk points to a footnote that quotes — of all people — William F. Buckley, Jr.: "Alinsky takes the iconoclast’s pleasure in kicking the biggest behinds in town and the sport is not untempting …"

"Biggest behinds"... mocking the fat... hmmm... it is a tempting sport! Who will win?

Time to move the goal posts again. Anti-women didn't work. If HBO has really lost subscribers, and Rush's ad base has not taken a hit, then maybe Maher should try the 'GOP as Taliban censors' tactic? It's okay to vote with your wallet when Rush is at issue, but doing so against Maher is a direct shot at free speech itself.

I have enjoyed the CNN and NPR pieces on 'is it time for Rush to be silenced?' over the last couple of weeks. A lot of lefty illiberal ideas have been on full display lately, and it's starting to hurt them in the polls.

It seems to me to be a shame that our elected officials countenance increasing debt, failure to pursue an energy policy which is very much needed, and ignore foreign policy issues. Yet, they focus on a couple of foul mouthed "entertainers" as if the entertainers somehow pull the strings of power.

Mr Obama, whose political skills havent moved much off zero, and we get the progs advocating shutting Mr Limbaugh down for "misogny."

This is what our country has become, and it really isnt pretty. I mull these thoughts over every time it costs me 60 dollars to fill my tank with gas.

The "war on women" was a bull shit trope--the real war on women is based on the sorry economic situation--Women and men suffer the same economic hardships, and contraception is a wonderful red herring. This campaign strategy in a rather blatent attempt to secure the women's vote will go nowhere.

I normally disagree with your post but I think you are correct on this issue. If the right stands for individual responsibility, then that responsibility applies to all facets of character.

On the other hand, it is as Michael sez, "We won't be fooled again". So I try to live by the adage "Everybody gets one". A dog gets one bite, a writer gets one bad book, a restaurant gets one bad meal, etc.(this adage does NOT apply in physical confrontations, I'm old and fat, I'm gonna have to kill you quickly)

As for wanting deliberate, non-sensational conversation on the internet? Good luck with that from either side :-)

Ps. My "everyone gets one" was applied to the big O also. He used his up very quickly. My wife, on the other hand went straight to "He's the Anti-Christ!"

In her defense she had just recently finished the Tribulation series. Four years later she says "He's the Anti-Christ!"

I know hindsight is 20/20, but is it really that hard to anticipate how this back and forth settles out between left and right. It happens every day and it's always the same following a slow evolutionary path. I just think nobody sits down and plans how to be at the next station when that train gets to it's inevitable daily destination.

Maybe people like Rush, or Axelrod do that. It would make sense for them to be well practiced at it, even employing full time planners, but do they do it? Seems to me it would be one of the most valuable skills in politics or media.

It seems that is what pundits get paid for, but they don't seem real good at it either. They basically say the same things we unpaid dolts who don't even try at it.

Maher's ridicule machine has run into some strong push backs. His allies are leaving him to take the heat for it.

Rush at the least has loyal allies.

@ Triangleman...If you don't understand the meme that "sexual woman" are the target of the vulgar words used about women, then I cannot help you. (Hint:It has something to do with them living as if they are free from the relationship rules that men like applied to their women.)

phx said: That's the only way it can work. If we accept responsibility for our own behaviors ALL THE FREAKING TIME.

phx, I get what you're saying, but I think that it fails to apply to this discussion simply because neither Bill Maher nor Rush are commenting here. No one here has used the inappropriate language (in that context), so there's nothing for them to take responsibility for.

In contrast, however, some people want all conservatives to take responsibility for what Rush said (i.e., it's the "Republican" war on women, not "Rush's Limbaugh's" war). That's what we most certainly need to push back against.

but is it really that hard to anticipate how this back and forth settles out between left and right.

Nope. In fact it's easy, or at least it should be. However, there is that phenomenon in which the more clever and savvy become complacent in their success. Then they start to make rookie errors in judgment (and then just double-down).

Sometimes your analyses verge on genius. This is one of those times. To think that Rush might be using the left's playbook and then to show how he's doing it is just great. I do sense a turn in the tide on this Fluke Flap.

I suppose I'm hopelessly out of date, but I have always thought the c word was as bad as the n word. (I had never heard of the c word until I was about 30.) Both words are vulgar expositions of the speakers mind and heart.

Some words that should never have seen the light of day are spun as edgy. Once they get to edgy and away from appalling they become banal very quickly.

Then they become politically useful which opens them to be used by liberals in any way they choose; to punish the conservative or excuse liberals. After all they (the opposition) deserve that disgusting word. To deserve the word is to be the word.

I don't see what is potent about ridicule. I don't know the context, but I feel that rule of Alinsky is probably quite dumb--Probably just something a pedant said. I mean, laughter is properly about silly mistakes, and why get angry about those? Limbaugh is not a comedian, so I can accept anger from him more than I can from Maher. True, I suppose there's a kind of good comedy, often associated with vulgar language (probably more full of conflations), that is bitter because it brings out the evil purposes behind the originators of all the bad various verbal conflations, etc., and conflations are what comedy above all deals with.

But is Maher's so-called comedy much that? I doubt it. His vulgarity just seems to me to be something he enacts to try to appear like he is not an elitist. True, the people who cause evil conflations in others also tend to make the same conflations themselves, but I don't dislike them for believing the conflations but for deceiving others into believing them, so it's hard for me to imagine ridiculing them. I suppose like for most things under the sun, there is a place for ridicule, but whatever is the place, I'd say off hand that it would properly involve rather extreme situations.

C'mon, rcommal. Rush has long been one of the few conservative voices to make a dent in the mainstream media coverage. He's done it all through radio, in a field dominated by visual content. And they've relentlessly tried to exterminate him. In this case they tried to train their planet-obliterating death ray on him, but he managed to inflict damage to their Death Star without being mortally wounded himself.

deborah, I love the Bangkok joke. I'll be using that one, if you don't mind.

Rush will still be on the air, his ratings will go up and so will his ad rates and his air time filled. Axelrod will be on Maher's show later in the year and the left will still be doing their set up faux outrages untill they get yet another blow back and push back. Probably a number of times until they get a clue that in the internet age those tactics aren't all that useful. Both Maher and Limbaugh know their audience and both will still be employed next February and both will miss the unemployed Obama who has been very good for the both of them. Why is it that it is all to easy imagining the two of them at a private black tie dinner having a quiet cognac and cigar away from the crowd telling each other war stories while laughing all the way to the bank.

In another surprise, a Judicial Watch FOIA request shows that the White House encouraged and was closely involved in the firing of Shirley Sherrod. This was denied by the lying and dishonest WH advisor David Axelrod at the time.

His talent is a literary decoding of the left, not an explaining of the right.

Good point. His show is good when he plays soundbites off MSNBC and CNN and analyzes/mocks them.

His show is terrible when he tries to define conservatism, or declare who's a "real" conservative and who's a RINO. And by terrible, I don't just mean I disagree with him. I mean he comes off as a cranky blowhard, completely dense, immune to reason, and unentertaining.

The real question is did Obama's team even consider a fallback position or did they just assume they couldn't lose because all women are as stupid as liberal women, & would fall for the scam?Rush was the only person I heard mention that he smelled a rat when little Georgie Stephanopolis made the opening move of the scam,back in the January debate. Given that, maybe Rush did do a 'rope-a dope' on the Obama scam operation.

BTW, I think that where Rush separates himself from the pack is the literary nature of his monologues. I hear other "right wing" to use the Left's word, talk shows, and none can touch him because he comes from a long line of great storytellers born on the Mississippi.

After reflection, what feels most appropriate as a target of ridicule would be pointless distinctions designed to hide an intermingled bad conflation. Also bad is pointless distinctions and definitions designed to hide the lack of useful distinctions and definitions, as is common in math and above all philosophy, but the latter phenomenon does not make me feel ridicule.

I thought Rush made a mistake by apologizing, but it is clear after reading the transcript of Miss Fluke's remarks that she was not speaking about her own contraceptive needs. Rush was simply correcting an inaccurate comment that he made.

In the end, Rush was right to apologize, and the ensuing disarray on the left is highly entertaining.

I can't wait to see the vacations that Michelle arranges before January 20th.

""Biggest behinds"... mocking the fat... hmmm... it is a tempting sport! Who will win?"

Indeed. The left has a better contender for the biggest behinds to kick - Michael Moore. Who is a major proponent of what goes for humor on the left - rediculing people; what I call a parasitic "humor".

Phx. Tough shit. The game has changed and the bullies are now pinned down and have decided they want to stop fighting. We have fallen for that trick enough. Grow up yourself. Oh, and peace.

Michael takes it personally. As far as I can see the "bullies" are far from deciding they want to stop fighting. You think the bullies are on the left and only on the left (unless you conscience grants you to allow maybe one or two small right-wing exceptions).

The bullies are on both sides and they're armed to the teeth with irrationality and a sense of being personally offended...by other Americans. Who they hate and fear.

Some of you want to imagine it's not like that but all you have to do is pick a single political thread at Althouse, scroll through the comments and you'll see - maybe YOU aren't so irrational, but many, many right-wing (and left-wing) commenters are. Just because it's convenient for you to point to the other guys doesn't make you clean. Your parents should have taught you that.

Regardless of Ann and Meade's slobbering over the fat man...others have an entirely different opinion of the jerk:

In a survey of likely voters, Bloomberg found that 53 percent — including 56 percent of women and 49 percent of men — thought Limbaugh should be fired. Nearly one-third of Republicans believed it was time for the conservative icon to step down.

"Recently, conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh made comments about a university student who testified before the U.S. Senate about access to birth control at religious universities. He used the words “slut” and “prostitute” to describe her. Based solely on these comments, do you think Rush Limbaugh should or should not be fired?" - from the poll. http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rNQ19FPBKQG0

Notice that just the two words were used, nothing about "illustrating absurdity with the absurd" which Rush says all the time. No context whatsoever. No question about Maher.

That Bloomberg article is the gift that keeps on giving, look at the headline, then the relevant piece of the article:

"Republicans Losing on Birth Control as 77% in Poll Spurn Debate"

"While Democrats have charged that the Republican position amounts to a “war on women,” the poll indicates that they aren’t benefiting from it in respondents’ perceptions of the two parties. The survey also suggests that the advantage Democrats have historically enjoyed among women may have narrowed."

if the former is true than the latter was a clever move to make. At this stage, Maher and Co can't appologise without further damage to themselves.

No, you miss the point:

This is a battle that shouldn't be fought - no one can "win" in the long run.

This current desire everyone has to get the other side is over-riding their reason - because, using this any-weapon-at-hand strategy, they're damaging our freedoms at the same time - something that, last I heard, conservatives were against.

I see a pattern developing now, with conservatives willing to do wrong in order to win - when we're winning already.

Kinda hard to say we're not like Democrats - as Rush claimed when he apologized - behaving like this,...

Rush will still be on the air, his ratings will go up and so will his ad rates and his air time filled.

And Obama will defeat Rush in the November election. Unfortunately for The One, Rush isn't a candidate.

I see a pattern developing now, with conservatives willing to do wrong in order to win - when we're winning already.

Kinda hard to say we're not like Democrats - as Rush claimed when he apologized - behaving like this,...

I'm so fricken tired of the Equialence Fairies. I've been involved in politics for 15 years now, working (not for free) campaigns at both the state and federal level. In that 15 years, I've seen what happens to Conservatives who honorably attempt to play by Marquess of Queensberry rules.

If there was a time for civility, it passed a decade ago. When Clinton went after Starr. When Gore contested Florida 2000. Grow some balls. The Left is willing to win AT ANY COST. The only way to get them to come to the table and play fair is to use their own tactics against them. Destroy them. Then make the rubble bounce.

The only way to earn a return to Civility is through a Victor's Peace.

This current desire everyone has to get the other side is over-riding their reason - because, using this any-weapon-at-hand strategy, they're damaging our freedoms at the same time - something that, last I heard, conservatives were against.

Reason first. Everybody play by the same rules.

That's "everybody as individuals play by the same rules." Because nobody, but nobody, can be responsible for someone other than themselves. You can't be held responsible for the people on your own side. You speak for yourself.

Sorry Crack, but I really am sick of the Equivalence Fairies. Its like people no longer have guts to call the perps out. You get mugged and the Fairies proclaim that BOTH of you need to stop fighting.

No more of that bullshit.

As I wrote last night, I know there's no stopping this train, but that's still no reason to ignore it's going to jump the tracks - that's what it's designed to do.

And you know I'm not the type to play a moral equivalence game - I want to win as bad as you do - but we ARE winning. So the question becomes, what are we fighting for? A world where language is policed? That's what the liberals wanted - so what's going on?

Why was it wrong for them but right for us? Why has our side adopted the politically correct argument? Beating the Left this way can't help but hurt us. How long before someone's telling you what you can't say? That's the only natural, unavoidable result.

Like I said, Rush apologizing was wrong. He may not have meant to, but he fell into the politically correct column when he accepted the argument he'd done wrong - just as Don Imus did. Either we have Freedom of Speech or we don't. If we do, then there are no wrong words, but just wrong ideas - and since what Rush said about Fluke wasn't so far off the mark (as a joke) that he had anything to be sorry for, the apology was unwarranted.

The truth is he got spooked by the advertising exodus and, as a result, made a tactical mistake.

Phx. I dont take it personally at all. In my private life I do not allow myself to be slandered and I have quit being polite where my political views are mischaracterized and I am slandered by association. What is the difference. You mount a high horse off a foolish stool assuming that ideas fight for themselves and that the other cheek is somehow rewarded. I yield to no man in the importance of personal responsibility and believe almost enough to put it is all caps that being a pussy is not responsible nor laudatory.

I agree that Rush's slut and prostitute comments went over the line. It's not the first time. It's what he does--illustrate the absurd through satire.

I think his apology was tactical and wicked smart, and maybe even sincere. He didn't and doesn't have a business problem. He had and is exploiting a business opportunity.

His apology predictably sucked the lefty institutions in completely. They will blather (like Modo), but they can't touch him. The silly polls are a joke. There is only one poll that matters and that's ratings. Watch them increase.

Obama screwed the pooch again. Ms. Fluke got crapped on and used, and will be the once and future slut. Rush wins.

Crack, I agree that Rush's slut and prostitute comments went over the line. It's not the first time. It's what he does--illustrate the absurd through satire.

That's fine - all Rush's words got out of me when he said it was a "Whoa-ho-ho!" and a chuckle. I didn't hear anything unusual, or egregious in them. I think this was (and still is) combatants looking for a fight so they started one, nothing more. I think his apology was tactical and wicked smart, and maybe even sincere. He didn't and doesn't have a business problem. He had and is exploiting a business opportunity.

I don't doubt his sincerity, once he did it, but news of advertising departures came first so I have a hard time understanding how that couldn't have been a catalyst. And I agree - there's no stopping him, so he'll spin gold out of it. His apology predictably sucked the lefty institutions in completely. They will blather (like Modo), but they can't touch him. The silly polls are a joke. There is only one poll that matters and that's ratings. Watch them increase.

Agreed, agreed, agreed. Except for one thing - I think it was Kirsten Powers in The Daily Beast that started the second phase of this that "sucked the lefty institutions in completely." Before that article, Bill Maher wasn't on anyone's radar. Obama screwed the pooch again. Ms. Fluke got crapped on and used, and will be the once and future slut. Rush wins.

Agreed - but this tendency for everyone to state who wins still gives the game away: Nobody cares about ethics or anything else any longer - you're all blindly engaged in blood sport when A) we were winning anyway and B) I keep reminding you we'll lose this one - in the long run. Sure, there's some short-term gain, or gain for Rush alone, but you're still laying the groundwork for the other side to trip us up. As Ann said, there are rules being established here - rules you aren't going to like any more than libs currently do, when you're the target. That's why I'm refusing to play:

No one's taking away my Freedom of Speech and I'm definitely not going to give them ammo, now, to do so later.

@phx,Maybe not intentionally, but your "only responsible for yourself" is pretty much proving Fen's point.

You, a liberal, are trying to shove that principle in a conservative's face as some sort of moral trump.

But I don't see you pushing back against all your fellow liberals in these threads, all their "smear by association" and near-total lack of reason in their "up is down, black is white" pretzel logic contortions.

So your plea for "reason" and civility is just another attempt to shut down conservative speech to leave a free path for liberal assholishness.

Maybe that isn't your intent.

It is the actual effect.

Now will you live up to your principle and take responsibility for what you are actually bringing about?

In making their strong argument, Rush's opponents articulated a rule demonizing those who use offensive language to describe a woman.

You completely missed the objection, didn't you? It was simply calling her a slut and prostitute that was objectionable, but working out how many times she had sex every day and requesting that she post videos online so Rush could get his rocks off.

For that reason, his apology was completely inadequate and indicated that neither he nor you understood what all the fuss was about.

@phx,Also, there is a difference between denying personally responsibility and correctly identifying the stimulus to your response.

Yes, we all are personally responsible for how we respond to circumstances.

But if liberals and their news media enablers create a situation where integrity is punished, then reason indicates that only a fool will continue to play that game.

Personal responsibility for our own actions, sure, but the ones who intentionally destroy civility when they decide it benefits them have equal or greater responsibility. Trying to push it back on Fen for responding in kind is just denying your own responsibility for the way the situation has been subverted and corrupted.

Like: if you see someone drowning, and do nothing, are you at fault?

Does being able to act effectively and choosing not to mean you acted irresponsibly?

You said: "B) I keep reminding you we'll lose this one - in the long run. Sure, there's some short-term gain, or gain for Rush alone, but you're still laying the groundwork for the other side to trip us up. As Ann said, there are rules being established here - rules you aren't going to like any more than libs currently do, when you're the target. That's why I'm refusing to play:"

Maybe, but I don't think so. Most institutional Lefties don't get conventional morality, and since they are leading, the herd will follow. They'll defend every foolish Obama feint until hell freezes over. Rush will bait them on slutgate for a little while longer, until the next little contretemps. He'll sucker punch them again. They're transparently dumb.

But Rush knows his audience. They do understand conventional morality, and they are not transparently dumb. Most would never say it out of politeness, but they think Fluke is a slut, not because of the pill nonsense, but because she whored herself out for the likes of Pelosi, et al.

Stephen said"I don't see what is potent about ridicule. I don't know the context, but I feel that rule of Alinsky is probably quite dumb--Probably just something a pedant said. I mean, laughter is properly about silly mistakes, and why get angry about those?"

I don't remember exactly where I read it, but the author of an article I read many years ago made a very good case that the KKK was brought down by rendering it ridiculous. As I was growing up the KKK was viewed as a bunch of demented people dressing up in pillowcases. I read history and realized the horrendous harm they perpetrated, but by the time I had experience with them was as a ridiculous antiquated bunch of clowns with no political power, which they remain to this day.

But if liberals and their news media enablers create a situation where integrity is punished, then reason indicates that only a fool will continue to play that game.

Personal responsibility for our own actions, sure, but the ones who intentionally destroy civility when they decide it benefits them have equal or greater responsibility. Trying to push it back on Fen for responding in kind is just denying your own responsibility for the way the situation has been subverted and corrupted.

Nathan, this is just a self-serving "The devil made me do it" excuse. Personal integrity doesn't get a waiver because someone says it's costly and unfair. My integrity is all I've got. If I sully it, it's my responsibility.

This is hard for anyone to live up to. Rationalizations are rationalizations.

Phx. As a heads up, you should know that people proclaiming their "self integrity" are usually without. You may be the exception but your posts suggest you have a very high opinion of your own and a readiness to identify shortfalls in others. A bad sign. Fyi. And peace.

I'm not really saying anything about my integrity here other than, well, what I've been saying: I'm responsible for my integrity, nobody else is. If I violate it, I can't say those Republicans made me do it.

My style can be attacked for a lot of good reasons I suppose. I'm preachy, I'm boring, I have a high opinion of myself, fair enough. But if my integrity is under suspicion because I say use reason first and hold yourselves to the same standards that you hold others, well that's a measure of the sad state we are in IMO.

---But the meme that the GOP is hostile to sexual women will still be around after the " they all do it" defense has faded. ---

Its not effective propaganda if you broadcast to people you are going to manipulate them into believing something.................................Then, from March 7 to 10--a week into the national media firestorm surrounding Rush Limbaugh's degrading remarks about Georgetown Law student and liberal activist Sandra Fluke--Washington Post/ABC conducted another poll. It found Obama's approval rating at 46 percent, down four points from February, and his disapproval rating at 50 percent, up four points from February.

According to the poll's crosstabs... Obama's approval rating actually dropped 3 points among women and 6 points among men between February and March (Obama's disapproval rating was up 1 point among women and up 7 points among men):

Obama's approval among women

February: 53-44 March: 50-45.

Obama's approval rating among men

February: 47-48 March: 41-55

Women just aren't as dumb as Democrats think they are. Most women are struggling in this economy, not identifying with a 30 year old law school activist who will earn $160K when she graduates. Women who are struggling know that nothing is free and that assaulting religious freedom to get a handful of pills is a bad bargain.

Why should I have to go to all the trouble of searching your comments for a single *instance* of you living up to your own standard? Surely you can easily do it yourself, as you know what you said and when you said. Why put me on a wild goosechase when it would take you all of 5 minutes to prove your self?

Because there aren't any instances? Because you aren't acting in good faith?

This is the part where I show you Mercy instead of raking you over the coals for using Righteousness as a political prop to silence speech.

But setting rules for others that you don't hold yourself to (i.e., "provide evidence that you have integrity") is also an example of a failure of integrity, and clear thinking.

Then you don't understand integrity. Even if you believe I am the basest most vile hypocrite, you shouldn't lower your standards to what you *think* mine are.

Integity means you don't cheat, even if you are certain everyone else does. There's no Equivalence. This is something that always hamstrings those on the left. They base their ethics on what the pretend the other side is doing. Thats got nothing to do with Integrity.

See? In the time it took you to make all that up, you could have found your quote and thrown it in my face.

Would have been much more effective, and I would have been forced to apologize profusely.

But you don't have it. Thats too bad. It would have been refreshing to find a liberal who didn't stare at his shoelaces while convervatives were being marginalized by lefty hate speech. Might have even restored my faith and brought me back to civility.

You, a liberal, are trying to shove that principle in a conservative's face as some sort of moral trump.

But I don't see you pushing back against all your fellow liberals in these threads, all their "smear by association" and near-total lack of reason in their "up is down, black is white" pretzel logic contortions.

So your plea for "reason" and civility is just another attempt to shut down conservative speech to leave a free path for liberal assholishness.

Maybe that isn't your intent.

It is the actual effect.

Now will you live up to your principle and take responsibility for what you are actually bringing about?